Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

Pinkham&McDonough, Appellants, v. McFarland&Elrod, Respondents

         No briefs on file.

         JUDGES: Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          MURRAY, Judge

         The indorsements of the notes sued on are not denied with sufficient certainty by the answer; if they were, the defendants ought to have objected to their introduction in evidence.          As no such objection was made, the plaintiffs were warranted in supposing it was waived, and the subsequent motion for nonsuit was a surprise upon them which the Court should have relieved, by admitting further testimony.

         The power of opening up a case after it has been once submitted, rests in the sound discretion of the Court hearing the cause, which we will not as a general rule attempt to revise. In this case, however, the plaintiffs have been misled by the acts of the defendants, and justice requires that a new trial should be granted.

         Ordered accordingly.

Affirmed, Poorman v. Mills & Co. 35 Cal. 121.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Pinkham & McDonough v. McFarland & Elrod
(Jan 1, 1855)